President Donald Trump’s administration is facing renewed scrutiny over its handling of the Jeffrey Epstein case after Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche completed two days of interviews with Epstein’s convicted associate, Ghislaine Maxwell. But instead of calming public concern, the administration may have amplified it—especially after President Trump publicly floated the idea of a potential pardon for Maxwell.
On his way to Scotland Friday, President Trump was asked about the possibility of pardoning Maxwell. “Well, I don’t want to talk about that,” he initially responded, before adding, “It’s something I haven’t thought about,” and then notably emphasized, “I’m allowed to do it.”
The remark quickly drew comparisons to previous instances where Trump hinted at pardons for individuals entangled in investigations that could affect him—like Paul Manafort, Michael Flynn, and Michael Cohen during the Russia probe. In those cases, critics accused Trump of dangling pardons as leverage. Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report stopped short of declaring obstruction but cited those comments as potentially influencing witness cooperation.
The concern now is that Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 for trafficking minors and facilitating Epstein’s abuse network, could be in a similar position—one where her incentive to cooperate or remain silent is shaped by the prospect of presidential clemency.
And there are other red flags surrounding the Maxwell interviews.
Rather than being conducted by seasoned prosecutors already involved in her case, the interviews were led by Blanche—a top political appointee and Trump’s former personal attorney. That choice drew sharp criticism, including from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, who called it a blatant conflict of interest.
Blanche’s personal relationship with Maxwell’s lawyer, David Oscar Markus, has also raised eyebrows. The two appeared together on a podcast last year, with Blanche praising Markus as “by far the best out there.” Markus, in turn, lauded Trump’s “commitment to uncovering the truth” and suggested the door to a pardon was open. “We hope he exercises that power in a right and just way,” he said.
It’s a notable shift, considering the Justice Department under Trump’s first term had previously labeled Maxwell a “brazen liar.” In 2020, DOJ prosecutors charged her with perjury for allegedly lying in a civil deposition about her knowledge of Epstein’s abuse. Though those charges were later dropped in exchange for sparing victims more trauma, the DOJ at the time made clear it didn’t trust her credibility—stating her false testimony “strongly suggests her true motive has been and remains to avoid being held accountable.”
Now, those same prosecutors are out, and Blanche is leading the administration’s effort to reengage Maxwell—possibly in hopes of obtaining new information tied to Epstein’s network. But the optics, legal history, and political entanglements have made this effort appear more like a deal than a quest for justice.
Adding to the controversy, the Trump administration has shown recent willingness to intervene in other high-profile criminal cases—such as moving to drop charges against New York Mayor Eric Adams while reportedly seeking cooperation on immigration enforcement. That move prompted multiple resignations, with one prosecutor explicitly calling it a “quid pro quo.”
Whether Maxwell’s interviews will result in new revelations remains uncertain. Legally, even discredited witnesses can provide value if their statements are backed up with corroborating evidence. But many observers argue that the Trump administration isn’t doing enough to ensure transparency—or to distance itself from any appearance of impropriety.
As President Trump continues to suggest the pardon power is “on the table,” critics fear history may be repeating itself—and that accountability in the Epstein saga is once again being sidetracked by politics.
